praying in public in Chicago = disordely conduct

topher5150

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
May 25, 2008
Messages
3,600
Reaction score
6
Location
Grand Rapids, Michigan
A Chicago man says he's fighting charges of disorderly conduct for simply standing on a public sidewalk and praying.
Joseph Holland, a 25-year-old graduate student at Northwestern University, says he was standing still praying the rosary outside a Planned Parenthood facility in downtown Chicago July 3 when police arrested him for violating the city's new "Bubble Zone" ordinance.
The law, passed in October, states that a person cannot approach within 8 feet of another person without consent "for the purpose of passing a leaflet or handbill to, displaying a sign to, or engaging in oral protest, education or counseling" within 50 feet from any health care facility.
It also says a person cannot "by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction" intentionally interfere with any person entering or leaving any health care facility.
But Holland says he didn't approach or interfere with anyone.
"I was just standing by the building praying the rosary and one of the Planned Parenthood volunteers came up to me and started yelling at me that I needed to move 8 feet away, but the thing is I didn't actually approach anyone; I was just standing by the building and the building doesn't actually have a bubble," Holland told FoxNews.com.
Holland said he never responded to that volunteer or said a word to any Planned Parenthood staffers or anyone entering the building, but he still got arrested.
"I tried to talk to the officer first and explain that the building doesn't have an 8-foot bubble and that I didn't talk to anyone," Holland said. "I said, 'I'm praying, I'm praying to God, not talking to people' and basically he said me praying was a type of approaching people and violated the bubble zone ordinance."
Chicago police spokesman Roderick Drew told FoxNews.com that, according to the report, Holland "stood within an inch of the victim, prayed out loud at a high volume for over 10 minutes" but ultimately got arrested for blocking the entrance.
"The offender refused two requests to move, and continued to block customer access to the establishment after being asked to clear the entrance by the person in charge of the facility," he said.
Holland's attorney, Peter Breen, says since it was the volunteer who approached Holland and not the other way around, Holland couldn't have violated the ordinance no matter how close to him she stood.
In response to the allegations that Holland was blocking the entrance, Breen says, they're "absolutely false."
"If he was actually blocking the entrance to the clinic, then that would be a federal felony, that would not be something the Chicago police would be placing in an ordinance violation," Breen, executive director and legal counsel of the Thomas More Society told FoxNews.com. "…This arrest was about one thing: trying to scare pro-life people away from Planned Parenthood."
Breen, who also is representing a man who was arrested for allegedly violating the ordinance outside the same facility a few days later, says the fact that any arrests were made for alleged bubble zone violations is itself cause for concern.
"This ordinance doesn't have a jail penalty, so normally for an ordinance like that the Chicago police would show up, if they believe a violation had occurred they would write you a ticket, and you would show up a month or two later at an administrative hearing," Breen said. "It would be like getting a ticket for having a beer on the subway."
"In these cases cops are actually taking these men, taking them into custody, booking them – that's an arrest that goes on their record -- keeping them for five hours, then finally releasing them," he added. "So there are a couple of facets to this and our alarm bells really went off when we saw this treatment."
Drew confirmed that Holland was arrested, photographed and kept in jail until he posted bond roughly four hours later.
But Planned Parenthood says it's a good thing that the law is being enforced with a heavy hand.
"Our patients have the right to safely access the reproductive health care services they need to stay healthy," Planned Parenthood spokesperson Lara Philipps told FoxNews.com. "…The bubble zone ordinance is critical to ensuring that those giving and seeking health care can safely enter and leave medical facilities without harassment and intimidation. We hope the law is robustly enforced."
As for whether or not Holland actually was in violation of the ordinance, Phillips said, "We leave it to the court to determine the facts of the case."
Holland says that will hopefully happen Tuesday.
"We had our first court date last Tuesday on the 27th and our next court date is this coming Tuesday and it looks like we're going to have a jury trial -- for a $500 max fine for violating a city ordinance that I clearly didn't violate," he said. "Seems like a big waste of taxpayer money to me, but if that's what we have to do to show that people are being targeted for violating a city ordinance that they're not actually violating, then I guess that's what we have to do." 
 
I'm not a Bible thumping, get in your face Christian, and I don't belive that getting in peoples face and screaming that they are going to rot in hell helps anything either. But this is just getting ridiculous, a $500 fine and an arrest for standing and praying he wasn't hurting anybody, he wasn't there with a mega phone and sign preaching fire and brim stone.
 
The police are zealots and the public wants it that way.
They can arrest you for anything and it's up to the judge to decide.

It's annoying seeing a praying doogooder out in front of a clinic
trying to be noticed and potentially sticking his nose into other people's business so instead of waiting for a possible disturbance to occur the police removed him.
 
My Dad is a street evangelist who walks the streets of Chicago a few times a week talking to people. I guess he'll be arrested before long. I told him, look, Chicago wants to go to hell, just let it. Go somewhere else where they want to hear the truth.
 
Well, in case you didn't know- according to the regime,
we now have a right to worship, not a freedom of religion.
 
Freedom of religion also includes freedom from religion.
Yeah - you have a right to believe anything you want - including negation. But that doesn't equate to arresting people for expressing themselves.
 
This country has always had a gung-ho police enforcement mentality.
Anything that potentially disturbs the peace is fair game even if it's legal.

People taking pictures of government buildings are routinely accosted and interrogated even though no laws are being broken.

And private police on private property can enforce any rules they want.

Political protesters free speeching are routinely removed from campaign trails.

Can't these idle people do something more worthwhile to collect their points for heaven?
 
This country has always had a gung-ho police enforcement mentality.
Anything that potentially disturbs the peace is fair game even if it's legal.

People taking pictures of government buildings are routinely accosted and interrogated even though no laws are being broken.

And private police on private property can enforce any rules they want.

Political protesters free speeching are routinely removed from campaign trails.

Can't these idle people do something more worthwhile to collect their points for heaven?
I can't decide if you're being sarcastic or condescending, so I won't respond.
 
I can't decide if you're being sarcastic or condescending, so I won't respond.


This guy is pushing the limits of the law.
The law says stay 500 feet away if you want to be a protester.
His act of praying near the entrance is a form of protest though he feels he's in compliance with his little cleverness.
However the uniformed police are not sophisticated parsers of the law and see him as someone causing a disturbance.
 
he wanted to test the law. he was asked to move, and refused.
deserves what he gets.
 
Freedom of religion also includes freedom from religion.

Explain what that means.
Freedom "from" religion. That means what exactly?

And does that also mean that while I have freedom of speech, that means you have a freedom "from" my speech, that means I can only say what I want in private?

he wanted to test the law. he was asked to move, and refused.
deserves what he gets.

Did you actually read the article, or did you just glance at it long enough to justify your statement in your own mind?

And would you feel the same way about this story if it were about something other than abortion, perhaps an anti-war protester infront of a recruiting station or the like?
 
Explain what that means.
Freedom "from" religion. That means what exactly?

It's like hate speech or pornography.

Both are legal but restricted so those who don't want it thrust in their faces don't have to put up with it.

Some people could find that organized religion is akin to pornographic hate speech (what with history and all) that puts down women and the protester represents such regardless of his rhetoric.

Jobs runs Apple as the porn and hate free phone (at least as far as apps and such) for those who prefer it as an example.

The intent of the law was to keep zealots from harassing people and this guy praying audibly to himself right at the entrance is a form of harassment people have to dodge to get to the clinic.
 
It's like hate speech or pornography.

Both are legal but restricted so those who don't want it thrust in their faces don't have to put up with it.

The First Amendment reads;
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[
The underlined portion is where we get the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise. The Constitution never says anything about freedom of religion, but it can logically be inferred from those two clauses.

The notion of freedom from religion cannot logically be inferred from those two clauses, or from the text of the first amendment. In fact, the Free Exercise Clause would prohibit the notion of freedom from religion. I have every right to exercise my religion as I see fit and the state cannot prohibit that in any way simply because it offends certain people's sensibilities.
 
It's like hate speech or pornography.
Actually, no it's not.
Religion is vastly different than both of those, demonstrated explicitly
because it's exercise is specifically mentioned in the constitution.

There's no "right to pornography."
That doesn't mean that all forms of pornography should or can necessarily be banned out right, but it's so vastly different, it must be noted. And considering that, you're approaching with a perspective that couldn't be more incorrect.

Using your logic, you can make it illegal to build a church or temple in an neighborhood because people don't want to have to be reminded of religion.
The people would have the right to worship in their homes, but the outward or public expressions should be banned.
That's dangerous.

The intent of the law was to keep zealots from harassing people and this guy praying audibly to himself right at the entrance is a form of harassment people have to dodge to get to the clinic.
Did he approach anyone and harass them?

I think what you're doing is emphasizing what I said earlier-
freedom of worship is different than from of religion.
And it's an important distinction. The Soviets had freedom of worship. We had freedom of religion.
 
The First Amendment reads;
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[
The underlined portion is where we get the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise. The Constitution never says anything about freedom of religion, but it can logically be inferred from those two clauses.

The notion of freedom from religion cannot logically be inferred from those two clauses, or from the text of the first amendment. In fact, the Free Exercise Clause would prohibit the notion of freedom from religion. I have every right to exercise my religion as I see fit and the state cannot prohibit that in any way simply because it offends certain people's sensibilities.

Well then we can put down none as a religion also.
There is freedom from religion because in this country no one can make you join or believe that which you do not care for.
 
Well then we can put down none as a religion also.
There is freedom from religion because in this country no one can make you join or believe that which you do not care for.

Where has anyone been forced to practice or join a faith they did not care for?
Is a man praying in public forcing you to practice his religion? Or is he just an inconvenient?

The way I read the article, it sounded like that guy followed the law to the letter and the arrest is essentially harassment. If you think the police and city acted accordingly by arresting him, religion shouldn't enter into this discussion. He either violated a specific law or not. He should have been arrested regardless whether he was a Christian opposed to abortion or a atheist who thinks we should have 100% publicly funded abortion or anything in between on any subject.

The religion aspect is only relevant if you think that he's being persecuted because of his religion and opinion.
 
Actually, no it's not.
Religion is vastly different than both of those, demonstrated explicately
because it's specifically mentioned in the constitution.

There's no "right to pornography."
That doesn't mean that all forms of pornography should or can necessarily be banned out right, but it's so vastly different, it must be noted. And considering that, you're approaching with a perspective that couldn't be more incorrect.


Did he approach anyone and harass them?

I'm speaking in practicalities and not specific legalities.
Comparing religion with hate speech and pornography is seemingly contrarian but hate mongers have faith in their beliefs just like the religious have faith in theirs.
They're convinced they are right and even rightious.
Every religion has the people who are special and the rest who are cast away.
I'll bet there's people who think they will wind up sitting at the right hand of God snickering at the damned below them.
Preaching violent hellfire and damnation from a vengeful God is graphic fear mongering.
Since no one can say what one would do in heaven or why, religion focuses on fires in hell as the other place no one wants to go to.

He didn't specifically approach anyone but just his presence there is an indirect harassment to some people.
 
Where has anyone been forced to practice or join a faith they did not care for?
Is a man praying in public forcing you to practice his religion? Or is he just an inconvenient?

The way I read the article, it sounded like that guy followed the law to the letter and the arrest is essentially harassment. If you think the police and city acted accordingly by arresting him, religion shouldn't enter into this discussion. He either violated a specific law or not. He should have been arrested regardless whether he was a Christian opposed to abortion or a atheist who thinks we should have 100% publicly funded abortion or anything in between on any subject.

The religion aspect is only relevant if you think that he's being persecuted because of his religion and opinion.

Now we're mostly free of religious discrimination but that is only a recent development.
In the past those not believing had to pay lip service to religion in order not to be discriminated against by the believers.
Muslims in some countries can be executed for not being religious or daring to become Christian.

You can follow the letter of the law and still get arrested.
Go take some pictures of government facilities or children that aren't yours and see what happens.:rolleyes:
Someone may wind up punching you in the face.

In the context of this facility and his activity the guy is being a nuisance at the very least.
Usually if I see someone alone praying to themselves on the street or mumbling or something I exersize suspicion and caution.
There's a lot of crazies in this world.
 
Well then we can put down none as a religion also.

We have recognized that view in the legal system (specifically in the 1943 case of United States vs. Kauten).

There is freedom from religion because in this country no one can make you join or believe that which you do not care for.

Freedom from religion necessitates a restriction of others in the exercising of their beliefs, which is explicitly rejected in the First Amendment.
 
Did you actually read the article,

yes

And would you feel the same way about this story if it were about something other than abortion, perhaps an anti-war protester infront of a recruiting station or the like?

where did you get abortion from?
and yes, i would feel the same in your second example.
protesting is not a right to block people from something legally available to them just because YOU disagree with it.
he was asked to move, and now must deal with the penalty.
 
yes



where did you get abortion from?
and yes, i would feel the same in your second example.
protesting is not a right to block people from something legally available to them just because YOU disagree with it.
he was asked to move, and now must deal with the penalty.
I guess you really didn't read the article - or you don't believe in "innocent until proven guilty."
Note:
In response to the allegations that Holland was blocking the entrance, Breen says, they're "absolutely false."
"If he was actually blocking the entrance to the clinic, then that would be a federal felony, that would not be something the Chicago police would be placing in an ordinance violation," Breen, executive director and legal counsel of the Thomas More Society told FoxNews.com. "…This arrest was about one thing: trying to scare pro-life people away from Planned Parenthood."
Breen, who also is representing a man who was arrested for allegedly violating the ordinance outside the same facility a few days later, says the fact that any arrests were made for alleged bubble zone violations is itself cause for concern.
"This ordinance doesn't have a jail penalty, so normally for an ordinance like that the Chicago police would show up, if they believe a violation had occurred they would write you a ticket, and you would show up a month or two later at an administrative hearing," Breen said. "It would be like getting a ticket for having a beer on the subway."
 
Seems everyone is ignoring this fact:

The law, passed in October, states that a person cannot approach within 8 feet of another person without consent "for the purpose of passing a leaflet or handbill to, displaying a sign to, or engaging in oral protest, education or counseling" within 50 feet from any health care facility.

If he was "standing by the building" praying out loud, he was engaged in "oral protest" and violated the 50 foot rule of the law.

Nobody's "rights" were infringed upon, he's free to pray in public 50 feet or more away from heath care facilities. He was asked to move and he refused. He got what he was asking for, attention and 15 mins of fame. Quit trying to blow this out of proportion, fearmongers.
 
I guess you really didn't read the article"

yes, i did.

Chicago police spokesman Roderick Drew told FoxNews.com that, according to the report, Holland "stood within an inch of the victim, prayed out loud at a high volume for over 10 minutes" but ultimately got arrested for blocking the entrance."The offender refused two requests to move, and continued to block customer access to the establishment after being asked to clear the entrance by the person in charge of the facility," he said.

apparently you didn't read all.

or you don't believe in "innocent until proven guilty."

you're speaking for me?
i said nothing that gives that impression.
he was told twice to move and refused. he was arrested and charged.
so, nobody should be arrested til convicted?
 

Members online

Back
Top